Crucial decision, hot off the press

[domaingenius]

TUESDAY, 23 MARCH 2010
Google AdWord decision - fresh from the ECJ

In joined cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, the ECJ today held that

1. Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical with that trade mark which that advertiser has, without the consent of the proprietor, selected in connection with an internet referencing service, goods or services identical with those for which that mark is registered, in the case where that advertisement does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party.

2. An internet referencing service provider which stores, as a keyword, a sign identical with a trade mark and organises the display of advertisements on the basis of that keyword does not use that sign within the meaning of Article 5(1) and (2) of Directive 89/104 or of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 40/94.

3. Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as meaning that the rule laid down therein applies to an internet referencing service provider in the case where that service provider has not played an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of, or control over, the data stored. If it has not played such a role, that service provider cannot be held liable for the data which it has stored at the request of an advertiser, unless, having obtained knowledge of the unlawful nature of those data or of that advertiser’s activities, it failed to act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the data concerned.

---------- Post added at 06:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:12 AM ----------

Just started reading the full Judgment. This is very relevant and is part of the Judgment made;
51 With regard, firstly, to the advertiser purchasing the referencing service and choosing as a keyword a sign identical with another’s trade mark, it must be held that that advertiser is using that sign within the meaning of that case-law.

52 From the advertiser’s point of view, the selection of a keyword identical with a trade mark has the object and effect of displaying an advertising link to the site on which he offers his goods or services for sale. Since the sign selected as a keyword is the means used to trigger that ad display, it cannot be disputed that the advertiser indeed uses it in the context of commercial activity and not as a private matter.

[PRED]

Can anyone translate and put into plain english please as sure it's important
thanks

[south]

Can anyone translate and put into plain english please as sure it's important
thanks

Ditto

[realtimeregister]

It is related to this news story : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...NewsCollection

PARIS—The European Union's highest court ruled Tuesday that Google Inc. has the right to sell ads linked to the Louis Vuitton name and other famous brands, a landmark judgment that clears search engines of trademark liability in Europe and protects a crucial revenue stream.

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that Google is not liable for trademark infringement when it sells ads linked to keyword searches for a brand to one of the brand's competitors.

[stock_post]

I got it wrong..

So, it is OK for google to make more and more money.

[south]

I got it wrong..

So, it is OK for google to make more and more money.

Maybe not: http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...eu-ruling.html

after the European Union’s top court said search engines may be held liable as online hosts if they are aware of storing infringing terms

[BobDiGiTaL]

I've always been told search engines and registrars were not governed by the same rules and regulations as "domain owners"
For example, when GoDaddy gets a WIPO complaint about one of my names, the first thing they do is change the DNS to their parking page servers.

Is this a global ruling or just European?

[britishbulldog]

Just a GoDaddy one as it never happened to me with other registrars........

[realtimeregister]

Off T : When we receive a WIPO complaint we pass it to our reseller who can pass it to the owner of the domain. In my opinion Registrars shouldn't act on these complaints beside making sure that the owner/registrant receives the complaint.
On T : EU ruling

[PRED]

Off T : When we receive a WIPO complaint we pass it to our reseller who can pass it to the owner of the domain. In my opinion Registrars shouldn't act on these complaints beside making sure that the owner/registrant receives the complaint.
On T : EU ruling

well point being different courts say diff thing
as we know wipo is just a quango who talk out of their rear end most of time and are definitely on payroll some of the 'panel members'

if things go to 'real' courts, the proverbial can really hit the fan
like here: http://www.dncrunch.com/?p=2973

everyone getting fined into oblivion. registrar, parking company, registrant
few more like this (which i hope not) it will really put cat among pigeons
granted the French are ott and oh so porecious with certain things. like keep going after domains like paris.org and really thinking they own, lol. and refusing to listen to other governing bodies. but that's the French. unfortunately we're all part of europe now so we have to abide by potty decisions within the eu
we've got enough crackers decisions in the UK thanks very much without everyone elses crap

[Diabro]

I got it wrong..

So, it is OK for google to make more and more money.

I do not understand. Do you have a problem with people making money?

[murphyteam]

Does anyone know where to get information on the history of parked page revenue? I need to know if there were parked pages, garnering revenue, as early as 2002.